Merged why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.

[wareyin]

Which means it was improper, correct?

The DOJ declined to prosecute, but nothing in that story indicates that the leak was lawful. Note: not lawful is not synonymous with criminal. I didn't say criminal. I avoided that word for a reason, because I'm not alleging criminality.

That leak happened from an anti-Trump FBI member. Do you think there are no more anti-Trump FBI members, that Comey was the only one?

That investigation does not limit the FBI's ability to investigate Trump if they found evidence of illegal behavior by Trump among those files.

At this point, all you have is one leaked memo from Trump's FBI, correct? And because of this, you suspect that under Biden similar improper actions would have been taken? You know that's a pretty stupid take, right? Under the famously corrupt and incompetent leadership of Trump, an "improper" leak happened. Under Biden, no leak happened. Therefore, in your eyes, obviously Trump is angelic?

It's not proof of innocence in the sense that a lack of evidence doesn't prove innocence. But the lack of an investigation is, in fact, strong evidence that they didn't have any evidence against Trump. Again, YOU are the one alleging that they would act improperly by not investigating criminal acts, not me.

Why would properly waiting until a case already under way would not be compromised be "acting improperly" again? Oh, right, because your cult leader would have improperly "used it against" his opponent, so you can't imagine anyone properly letting the DOJ handle their own cases.

 

[wareyin]

https://www.rawstory.com/pam-bondi-epstein-investigation-not/

pam bondi gives up the game already by saying they will not be releasing the full files due to an ongoing investigation into the dems only.

Hold up. Bondi had better talk to resident legal expert Zig, because:

One active case DOES NOT, and never has, precluded other investigations. That's not how it works.

 

[plague311]

Most victims have not even gone public. When plaintiffs lawyers helped set up the Epstein victims compensation program, there was apparently no adversarial process to determine who was a victim and the nature of their abuse from Epstein. Is it wrong to ask why or explore that further? Particularly if we're purely fact finding and aren't personally invested in the result? In fact, besides a small handful of public accusers, most of the Palm Beach high schoolers that the story revolves around are unknown. And they are increasingly forgotten, which, to be fair, is what a lot of them wanted. What concerns me is the handful of women invited on to all these shows and documentaries and news segments whose claims are uninvestigated, because they are free to say almost anything.


Maxwell is in prison as a co-conspirator of Epstein for procuring minors for Epstein. That's what they alleged, that's what she was convicted of.

But her indictment and trial occurred in climate of paranoia and conspiracism. "Epstein didn't kill himself", "release the list!", etc. Out of supposedly hundreds (even thousands by some accounts) of victims, the prosecution produced FOUR, two were disqualified right away cause nothing they alleged was illegal, but were allowed to testify anyway, three used pseudonyms, as if they were being hunted down by NWO assassins two decades later (They got Epstein, after all). It raises the fair question--what would've happened if all of the grown witnesses testified openly, faces and names known, Anouska De Georgiou (Kate) and Annie Farmer were not allowed to testify, and there was a more objective jury?

I've seen enough to know he's a piece of ◊◊◊◊ and I've read the statements from the victims. If you'd like to argue his innocence then go right ahead and if others are interested then I'll leave it to you guys.

I personally hope there is a hell, and he's burning in it right now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hold up. Bondi had better talk to resident legal expert Zig, because:

Are you really that bad at reading comprehension? Releasing files IS NOT the same as investigating someone. An ongoing investigation of one person might prevent the release of files related to that investigation, but it DOES NOT prevent the investigation of someone else. And Bondi IS NOT saying that it does.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The Epstein Affair was the biggest thing ever when Trump was using it for his advantage, now that it's a liability it's absolutely nothing and also a hoax and also real but only Democrats and also he already did all the investigations and also nobody knows anything and he never met Epstein and ignore those photos and also Epstein was completely innocent and also he was guilty because Clinton made him do it and also look at the big, beautiful resort he's going to build in the Maldives with Saudi money, tears in their eyes, best president ever, etc.

Live by the scandal, die by the scandal. Yet another situation in which Trump would have done better to have kept his mouth shut the whole time but we all know how good he is at doing that. Everyone has sage advice they cannot follow themselves and in Trump's case that's "quiet, piggy!"

 

[Darat]

The Epstein Affair was the biggest thing ever when Trump was using it for his advantage, now that it's a liability it's absolutely nothing and also a hoax and also real but only Democrats and also he already did all the investigations and also nobody knows anything and he never met Epstein and ignore those photos and also Epstein was completely innocent and also he was guilty because Clinton made him do it and also look at the big, beautiful resort he's going to build in the Maldives with Saudi money, tears in their eyes, best president ever, etc.

Live by the scandal, die by the scandal. Yet another situation in which Trump would have done better to have kept his mouth shut the whole time but we all know how good he is at doing that. Everyone has sage advice they cannot follow themselves and in Trump's case that's "quiet, piggy!"

Another one of your imagined fancies... I mean that could not describe real life in any way shape or whatever...

 

[wareyin]

Are you really that bad at reading comprehension? Releasing files IS NOT the same as investigating someone. An ongoing investigation of one person might prevent the release of files related to that investigation, but it DOES NOT prevent the investigation of someone else. And Bondi IS NOT saying that it does.

Your attempt to question my reading comprehension, while simultaneously confusing a policy violation with an unlawful leak and a legal constraint with evidence of innocence, is the logical equivalent of William Hung criticizing someone else's inability to sing on key. It's not a critique; it's projection.

The DOJ under Biden showed legal restraint by not leaking or charging Trump, arguing they were protecting the Ghislaine Maxwell case and the Rule of Law. In stark contrast, the DOJ under Trump did not hesitate to open an investigation into Democrats (Clinton, Summers, etc.) the moment the President demanded it, and then Attorney General Bondi immediately used that new, politically convenient investigation as a shield to legally block the release of files that Congress voted to make public.

This demonstrates a pattern where the only side we have evidence of weaponizing an investigation to actively prevent the release of public documents is the Trump side.

Your argument is inverted because your evidence of corruption proves my point, not yours. You are trying to use evidence of Trump corruptly interfering with the DOJ to argue that the Biden DOJ should have corruptly interfered with the Maxwell case. The fact that the Biden DOJ maintained the legal constraint of the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution is the only evidence we have that one side respected the legal process enough to secure a major conviction rather than pursuing political benefit.

 

[Ziggurat]

The DOJ under Biden showed legal restraint by not leaking or charging Trump

Bwahahahahahaha! No. There was no legal constraint.

And had there been any evidence of criminality, there would have been nothing improper about opening an investigation. Your claims to that effect have depended upon substituting releasing documents for opening an investigation, but those are completely different things. Don't think I didn't notice your moving the goalpost from investigating to charging either. And seriously, why should the government ever NOT investigate evidence of criminal activity?

 

[wareyin]

Bwahahahahahaha! No. There was no legal constraint.

And had there been any evidence of criminality, there would have been nothing improper about opening an investigation. Your claims to that effect have depended upon substituting releasing documents for opening an investigation, but those are completely different things. Don't think I didn't notice your moving the goalpost from investigating to charging either. And seriously, why should the government ever NOT investigate evidence of criminal activity?

Look, let's cut the crap. You’re splitting hairs between 'investigating' and 'charging/releasing documents' to pretend there was no legal constraint.

The legal constraint was the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The DOJ’s job was to secure the biggest sex-trafficking conviction of the decade. Publicly announcing an investigation into Trump, or releasing any of the sealed Epstein files, risked prejudicing the jury and causing a mistrial or a successful appeal for Maxwell, which would have been the ultimate failure of justice. That's a Sixth Amendment issue, and it absolutely restricts the DOJ's public options.

The fact that the Biden DOJ maintained the legal constraint of the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution serves as powerful evidence that they prioritized securing a major conviction over scoring a political point.

Your argument is inverted because your evidence of corruption proves my point, not yours. You are trying to use evidence of Trump corruptly interfering with the DOJ to argue that the Biden DOJ should have corruptly interfered with the Maxwell case, and because they were not corrupt, you are asserting that's evidence for Trump's innocence.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look, let's cut the crap. You’re splitting hairs between 'investigating' and 'charging/releasing documents' to pretend there was no legal constraint.

It's not splitting hairs. There's a HUGE difference. If someone did something illegal, just releasing documents showing that isn't the appropriate remedy, is it?

The legal constraint was the Ghislaine Maxwell trial.

That was not a constraint on investigating Trump or anyone else implicated.

The DOJ’s job was to secure the biggest sex-trafficking conviction of the decade. Publicly announcing an investigation into Trump, or releasing any of the sealed Epstein files, risked prejudicing the jury and causing a mistrial or a successful appeal for Maxwell

What the actual ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? She was convicted in 2021. There was no jury to prejudice after that.

 

[wareyin]

It's not splitting hairs. There's a HUGE difference. If someone did something illegal, just releasing documents showing that isn't the appropriate remedy, is it?

That was not a constraint on investigating Trump or anyone else implicated.

What the actual ◊◊◊◊ are you talking about? She was convicted in 2021. There was no jury to prejudice after that.

You claim it's a 'HUGE difference,' but your distinction is entirely semantic and legally irrelevant.

You are technically correct that the DOJ wasn't constrained from investigating Trump, but the constraint was strictly on publicly commenting or charging him. The Justice Manual explicitly forbids any comment on the existence, nature, or progress of an ongoing investigation before charges are filed. Therefore, the lack of a public statement or announcement is adherence to DOJ policy, not evidence of legal inaction.

Furthermore, the constraint did not end when the jury was dismissed in 2021. Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected in October 2025. The legal constraint continued through that entire appeals process. Publicly releasing sealed documents related to a key co-conspirator (Trump) during that time is the definition of pre-appeal publicity that could have been cited as grounds for a successful appeal.

Your entire argument is based on demanding the DOJ commit a policy violation and risk an appeal failure just to satisfy your political theory.

 

[dirtywick]

if mike johnsons assertion is true then trump was an informant and was already cooperating with the investigation into epstein

too many liars in this to know what happened imo

 

[dirtywick]

Dinner with Mr Brexit: Bannon’s European Revolution – Planned with Farage, Backed by Epstein

Nigel Farage was the figurehead and his partner Laure Ferrari started it. Steve Bannon and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were providing almost daily support

bylinetimes.com

epstein and bannon coordinated with nigel farage and others to coordinate far right european groups.

isn’t it something how all these right wing politics guys are all coordinated through a couple of rich sex weirdos

 

[dirtywick]

Look, let's cut the crap. You’re splitting hairs between 'investigating' and 'charging/releasing documents' to pretend there was no legal constraint.

The legal constraint was the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. The DOJ’s job was to secure the biggest sex-trafficking conviction of the decade. Publicly announcing an investigation into Trump, or releasing any of the sealed Epstein files, risked prejudicing the jury and causing a mistrial or a successful appeal for Maxwell, which would have been the ultimate failure of justice. That's a Sixth Amendment issue, and it absolutely restricts the DOJ's public options.

The fact that the Biden DOJ maintained the legal constraint of the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution serves as powerful evidence that they prioritized securing a major conviction over scoring a political point.

Your argument is inverted because your evidence of corruption proves my point, not yours. You are trying to use evidence of Trump corruptly interfering with the DOJ to argue that the Biden DOJ should have corruptly interfered with the Maxwell case, and because they were not corrupt, you are asserting that's evidence for Trump's innocence.

i agree, biden has a misplaced belief that the american justice system would prevail and took an extremely hands off approach to trump’s numerous crimes and treasons and let garland handle it. what a mistake.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your entire argument is based on demanding the DOJ commit a policy violation and risk an appeal failure just to satisfy your political theory.

So what's your theory? That there was incriminating evidence, that they did investigate Trump, the investigation was kept secret (even though the DOJ routinely leaks), and that the investigation didn't turn into a prosecution because... why? He's so slippery he committed crimes that they have evidence for but they couldn't prosecute?

Yeah, I don't buy it.

 

[dirtywick]

well he did commit crimes in other matters and they had evidence and couldn’t prosecute. literally already happened before, don’t know why your presenting that as some insane theory.

but what about he was informant as mike johnson stated. he traded info on epstein for his own benefit and there’s an agreement not to disclose that, and he doesn’t want any of it revealed to the public. clearly he’s afraid of something being public, or he wouldn’t be moving heaven and earth to keep these exonerating documents secret.

 

[wareyin]

So what's your theory? That there was incriminating evidence, that they did investigate Trump, the investigation was kept secret (even though the DOJ routinely leaks), and that the investigation didn't turn into a prosecution because... why? He's so slippery he committed crimes that they have evidence for but they couldn't prosecute?

Yeah, I don't buy it.

My position doesn't require a complicated theory about why a prosecution was declined; it only needs to explain why a public announcement or leak about an investigation didn't happen. Your entire argument is built on the premise that silence equals evidence of innocence, ignoring two major legal and political constraints.

First, the DOJ's silence is the logical result of adhering to the Justice Manual and the Sixth Amendment to protect the integrity of the Maxwell conviction throughout the appeals process. The constraint continued until her final appeal was rejected in October 2025, and violating that rule by releasing documents would have jeopardized a major federal conviction.

Second, you ignore the political calendar. The DOJ has an established policy against taking high-profile steps close to an election; making such an announcement mere weeks before the election can influence an election with disastrous results, as recent history has shown us. Furthermore, any public move after the November election would have been an unprecedented, politically incendiary announcement of an investigation into the President-elect.

They followed the rules to secure justice, and you are simply mistaking that adherence to the Rule of Law for evidence of innocence.

 

[Ziggurat]

well he did commit crimes in other matters and they had evidence and couldn’t prosecute.

Such as?

but what about he was informant as mike johnson stated. he traded info on epstein for his own benefit and there’s an agreement not to disclose that, and he doesn’t want any of it revealed to the public. clearly he’s afraid of something being public, or he wouldn’t be moving heaven and earth to keep these exonerating documents secret.

What has Trump done to keep anything secret? Not what he's said, talk is cheap and Trump talks a lot. What actual actions has he taken to keep anything secret?

And I find it plausible that there's stuff in there that's embarrassing to Trump, and that can provide a motive to want things kept secret. Like the stuff that came out about Larry Summers. He's been humiliated. But embarrassing isn't criminal. I don't find it credible that there's actual evidence of criminal conduct by Trump in there.

 

[dirtywick]

paul manafort and michael cohen both went to prison for crimes committed on his behalf. he directly interfered in the mueller investigation and the 2nd half of the report is the various ways in which he interfered in the investigation. he was convicted of 34 felonies but they threw the sentencing in the garbage. then there was his involvement in the fake electors scheme on his behalf as well as the nuclear secrets in the toilet. and that’s just off the top of my head.

in any case, fact is there is something in the epstein investigation that he wants kept secret. that you don’t find it plausible that it’s criminal conduct is interesting but ultimately you don’t have a clue anymore than anyone else so that’s what it is.

 

[Ziggurat]

paul manafort and michael cohen both went to prison for crimes committed on his behalf.

Uh, no. Manafort's convictions had basically nothing to do with Trump:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/406704-bombshell-manafort-pleads-guilty-reaches-cooperation-agreement

"Prosecutors allege that Manafort, conspiring with his former business partner Richard Gates and Russian associate Konstantin Kilimnik, illegally lobbied on behalf of a foreign government by failing to register as a foreign agent.​

Prosecutors also allege that Manafort laundered more than $30 million from his work to buy property and other items in the United States, evading more than $15 million in taxes."​

Cohen went to prison because he's an idiot who got caught lying. You can say he lied on behalf of Trump if you want, but Trump didn't tell him to lie.

he directly interfered in the mueller investigation and the 2nd half of the report is the various ways in which he interfered in the investigation.

You mean he didn't cooperate with the investigation. Not a crime.

he was convicted of 34 felonies

Wait... you said, "well he did commit crimes in other matters and they had evidence and couldn’t prosecute." I challenged this claim, and to support it you give as evidence a case where they did prosecute?

Do you even listen to yourself?